"Critics argue that giving amnesty to 12 to 30 million illegal aliens in the U.S. would have an immediate negative impact on America’s working and middle class — specifically black Americans and the white working class — who would be in direct competition for blue-collar jobs with the largely low-skilled illegal alien population." JOHN BINDER

Saturday, June 25, 2016

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The Washington Post is reporting that U.S. might not be able to follow in the U.K.’s footsteps in reclaiming its economic independence because of the nation’s demographic makeup, which is the result of four decades of record high green card issuances to foreign nationals.

“There are certainly similarities between the referendum and the [Trump] campaign. Both are largely driven by immigration… Both are nationalist movements. Both are an instance of the will of the people going against the wishes of the elite… And their demographic support looks quite similar too.”

Yet Soffen writes that Brexit may not be a harbinger for Donald Trump’s future electoral success because the U.S. does not have as many white voters as Britain does.

“Largely at issue here is demographics. The British electorate is overwhelmingly white – 87 percent of its population is, according to its 2011 census. That’s compared to the United States’ 74 percent in 2014. That difference is significant for what direction each country votes.”

Indeed, while establishment media has pushed the narrative that immigration is a much more significant issue in Europe than it is the U.S., the facts do not bear this out. The U.S. has accepted 10 million more migrants from outside its borders than the European Union has absorbed from outside its borders, even though the EU has 200 million more people than the United States. Indeed, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, minority babies now outnumber white babies in the United States.

Soffen reports that polling data suggests non-whites tended to support the globalist position over the nationalist policy.

“Just like more minority-dense areas in the United States, like cities, tend to vote Democrat, minority-dense areas in the United Kingdom tended to vote to stay in the EU. In London, where 60 percent of citizens are non-white according to the 2011 Census, 60 percent of votes went against Brexit, compared to 48 percent nationwide.”

“Since the U.S. is far more diverse than the U.K., Brexit’s predictive power is even weaker,” Soffen concludes.

The Washington Post suggests that in order to have nationalist policies, the U.S. has to have a large population of whites in its country. Perversely, the Washington Post is essentially arguing that foreign nationals do not seem to have a strong enough allegiance to their new country to support a nationalist agenda over a more global, internationalist agenda — an argument, which dramatically undercuts the Washington Post’s general narrative on immigration and contradicts a core theme of its humaninterestsstories, which seem designed to advance legislation that would expand U.S. immigration.

The demographic makeup the United States—which the Washington Post posits is the reason the U.S. could perhaps be incapable of voting in favor of reclaiming its national sovereignty—is the result of a Ted Kennedy-backed 1965 immigration rewrite, which opened up America’s borders to the world.

Kennedy’s immigration law lifted the immigration caps that had been place and opened up U.S. visas to migrants all across the globe.

While about nine in ten of the immigrants who came to the United States during the 19th and 20th century hailed from Europe, the 1965 law inverted that figure. Today about nine out of every ten new immigrants brought into the country on green cards come from non-Western countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia or the Middle East.

Following the law’s passage, 59 million immigrants entered the United States. Including their children, it added 72 million new residents to the U.S. population.

In 1965, according to Pew, the country was 84 percent white, 11 percent black, 4 percent Hispanic and less than 1 percent Asian– i.e. it had a white population that very similar in size to the white population of the U.K. today.

Unless Congress proposes legislation to curb the U.S. autopilot visa issuances, Pew projects that in forty years time as a result of large-scale immigration, “no racial or ethnic group will constitute a majority of the U.S. population,” as “whites are projected to become less than half of the U.S. population by 2055.” Therefore, by 2065, the nation would be 46 percent white, 24 percent Hispanic, 14 percent Asian and 13 percent black.

However, members of the globalist caucus in Washington including House Speaker Paul Ryan, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and President Barack Obama, have all pushed to accelerate this demographic transformation and have championed proposals to dramatically expand the nation’s record high immigration admissions.

“I estimate
that enforcing the law and deporting all illegals would raise real low-skill
wages by about 20% to 40% within 6 years, providing immediate relief to the
oppressed low-skill citizens of our country. (See my notes.)
Allowing in more high-skill people and few low-skill people would have
long-term benefits that would eventually tower over this short-term
benefit. A more skilled population would increase the historical trend of
economic growth in this country. We might even become the richest per
capita country in the world.

Californians
bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population
estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and
local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total
amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S.
citizen.

Why do Democrats hate the 'Dreamers' so much?

The U.S. Supreme Court this week let stand an appeals court decision that President Obama’s executive amnesty is illegal under the U.S. Constitution. This means per the Constitution that immigration law is still set by the Congress passing bills that presidents sign into law.

Among those affected by this decision are the so-called “Dreamers.” These are people who were brought to the U.S. as young children, sometimes very young children. Many of these people may be culturally quite American. They may not even speak the language of the country they are citizens of via the citizenship of their parents. The “Dreamers” did not break the law coming in to the U.S., as they were too young to have criminal intent. They did not break the law by staying with their parents until they became of age, as they were minors under the control of their parents. So they are quite a sympathetic group who might reasonably be expected to generate enough support in Congress to get some relief or a change in status.

But apparently the Democrats care so little for these “Dreamers” that they do not care what happens to them. That is the only way to explain how the Democrats have acted over the years concerning immigration policy. The Democrats seem unwilling to give up anything to help this sympathetic group or to build support for legalizing the “Dreamers.”

Back in 2006, after yet another rancorous debate on immigration policy and the failure of a comprehensive immigration bill, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush. The 2006 law provided for a two-layer fence on the southern border. Rather than give the supporters of more secure borders a victory and build the fence, Washington and particularly the Democrats have blocked completion of the fence, amending the original law a year later and arguing that a fence on the southern border is wasteful and will not work. In 2011 when President Obama was saying the fence was “now basically complete,” just over 5 percent or 36.3 miles of the originally legislated 700-mile double-layer fence was completed.

It is not as though a wasteful non-working fence on the southern border would be the single wasteful thing the government ever did. It is not as though a non-working fence would be the first non-working thing the government ever built.

When you engage in negotiation with someone you expect to negotiate again with later, you know you had better follow through with what you promise. If you don’t, you know that the other party will be very hesitant to negotiate or reach additional agreements with you in the future. So with the legislated border fence not complete a decade later, naturally the opponents of illegal immigration hesitate to give up anything even on a sympathetic issue like the “Dreamers.” This act of bad faith also has implications in presidential elections, but that is a story for another column.

A comprehensive immigration bill still seems highly unlikely at this time. Still, there might be room to negotiate on smaller issues like legalizing “Dreamers” in exchange for some concession from the other side like an end to anchor babies, provided that a way to end anchor babies that satisfies the courts can be found. But, of course, the scorched earth, no quarter given behavior of the Democrats on the border fence means that the opponents of illegal immigration are very hesitant to have their representatives negotiate on any issue concerning immigration. So nothing gets done even for a sympathetic group like the “Dreamers.”

So why won’t the Democrats give the opponents of illegal immigration a fence they were promised legislatively? Since Democrats generally claim that border fences will not work, why are they not happy to give their opponents a Pyrrhic victory of a double-layer border fence with a big ribbon-cutting ceremony? That would also help them with part of the Democrat base: union members and the working poor. It is not as if the Democrats are fiscal conservatives or dislike government and government spending. The Democrats apparently do not care enough about the “Dreamers” to give an inch on immigration on any front to build support to legalize them. One is left to conclude that the Democrats hate the “Dreamers.”

“The
classic method of investigation is to follow the money: First, billions
exported to drug cartels, hundreds of billions spent on thousands of new
government jobs in terrorism related industries, and millions of new illegal
government dependents - all beneficiaries for this new cyclical
dysfunction. And the American presidential seat, now a dictatorship, up
for grabs this year, is the grand prize to determine the next cycle of flow for
trillions of dollars. And we can again watch the senate and house pretend
to hold down the fort and make more, useless, insincere and unenforced laws.”

THE OBVIOUS SUCCESSOR TO THE LOOTING OF AMERICA CALLED THE OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS DOCTRINE

THE HILLARY & BILLARY CRIME DUAL HAVE ALWAYS SERVED THEMSELVES FIRST AND CRIMINAL BILLIONAIRES AND MUSLIM DICTATORS SECONDLY!

“Widely despised by young and lower-income voters as a corrupt personification of the status quo and a warmonger, Clinton has failed to generate any significant enthusiasm for her bid to follow her husband into the White House.”

"Nevertheless, Clinton has made a sharp turn to the right since the fascistic Trump’s emergence as the presumptive Republican nominee. She has largely dumped her semi-populist rhetoric—a response to the challenge from Sanders—and openly directed her appeal to disaffected Republican voters and campaign contributors, wealthier suburbanites, and, above all, Wall Street and the military/intelligence establishment."

Hillary Clinton -- Career Criminal

At the conclusion of an article on the State Department IG’s findings that Hillary Clinton brazenly violated federal record-keeping statutes, National Review’s Andrew McCarthy asks:

“What are we to make of Mrs. Clinton’s public posturing that of course [emphasis in original] she is prepared to cooperate -- and encourages her subordinates to cooperate -- with government investigators?”

The question is obviously rhetorical, but one problem with rhetorical questions is that we don’t always really answer them, other than shrugging. So allow me in this case to answer that question. What we are to make of Mrs. Clinton is that she is an accomplished career criminal -- and I mean that literally, not rhetorically.

Like a lot of accomplished career criminals Mrs. Clinton has committed so many high crimes and misdemeanors, and gotten away with them to boot, that we tend to forget (or ignore) past acts of lawlessness because the new ones keep on coming. And like skillful felons the world over, Mrs. Clinton takes full advantage of this very human inclination, by sloughing off past accusations as “old news” or the result of biases that have emerged through “misunderstandings.” Anyone who has worked in criminal justice has seen this phenomenon, where repeat offenders get to know police, prosecutors and judges so well that law enforcement tires of them -- maybe even comes to like them a bit -- and so cut the career criminal a break. And the clever crook knows this tendency and plays upon it. It’s this dynamic that led to the development of “three strikes” laws, so such crooks don’t receive unearned or plainly manipulated sympathy.

Donald Trump’s recent faux pasregarding the long-ago apparent suicide of Clinton confidant Vince Foster is an example of this process. Trump, as is his wont, made a poorly thought-out off-the-cuff remark suggesting that Foster was murdered, and that Clinton was behind it. Since this is one crime that the Clintons probably did not commit, Trump’s remark was foolish, since, like accusations about Obama’s birthplace, it just gives the leftist media ammunition to belittle legitimate criticisms. But it was also understandable -- Trump didn’t claim the accusations were true, only that he was aware of them, and given we’re talking about Hillary Clinton, well…

But Trump needn’t speculate about Foster’s fate, nor should we. Rather than trying to pin Foster’s death on Hillary, he ought to remind the public of her other crimes, and launch focused attacks on her documented and provable malfeasances, starting with her cattle futures trading windfall/bribe. Today, Hillary’s cattle trading is usually mentioned casually as an indicator of how far back Hillary’s corruption goes, but that crime (from 1978/79) itself is worth revisiting in some detail.

Like most of Hillary’s wrongdoing, she benefits from the fact that her schemes are complex, superficially boring, and often hard for the general public to understand. In that sense it’s understandable that Trump fell into the trap of talking about the Foster case. Murder and/or suicide is comprehensible and sexy, trading livestock is not. That doesn’t change the fact that Hillary’s $100,000 trading windfall cannot reasonably be seen as anything but a criminal bribe.

Anybody that knows anything about trading commodities understands that what Hillary claims to have done -- turn an initial $1000 investment in cattle futures into a $100,000 profit ten months later -- is as a practical matter almost impossible even for the most skilled commodity operator, and absolutely impossible for a neophyte such as Hillary was. My father traded commodities for decades, was very smart, reasonably good at it, and even ran an advisory service for a time. He managed to stay ahead but not by much. Three quarters of commodity traders lose money, the vast majority inexperienced traders like Clinton.

An inexperienced blackjack player would have a much, much easier time turning a $1000 stake at a casino into $100,000, than would a similarly situated person in futures trading, though of course such a blackjack run would require almost perfect play. What Hillary claims to have done would have required divine intervention, or a criminal scheme. Since I am fairly sure the Almighty is not on her side, we need to go with the latter.

After the trading scheme became public in the 1990s, Clinton and her defenders tried to explain the windfall away as a combination of Hillary’s native intelligence, luck, and good advice. But a scholarly paper put out in 1994 by the Journal of Economics and Financecalculated that the odds of gaining such a profit in ten months under conditions at the time, and giving the investor the benefit of the doubt, at 31 trillion to 1. By way of comparison, the odds that the blood detected on O.J. Simpson’s notorious glove (found after the murders at Simpson’s estate), did not contain the blood of his victims is between 21 and 41 billion chances in one. Thus, at least by this metric, it is far, far more likely that O.J. Simpson is innocent of the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, than it is that Hillary’s cattle futures profit was not illegal. Even a bored, inattentive and not very bright electorate can understand that. And I understand that some people never will understand it no matter what, which is why O.J. walked.

The futures trading incident is also notable in that after the scheme became a legal and political issue, Hillary’s cool reaction to it proved to be her coming out party as an effective mob boss who could handle herself under intense pressure and scrutiny. She was widely praised in the liberal press for being forthcoming and unflappable, while also giving no ground, a pattern that would repeat itself again and again, up to the present.

Hillary’s cattle futures bribery scheme dates back to the same time frame as she began her other introductory criminal scam, Whitewater. From there came the Rose Law Firm billing records scandal (related to Whitewater), Travelgate, Hillary’s libels against victims of her husband’s predatory sexual behavior, Troopergate (related to Bill’s dalliances), the White House’s missing furniture, the friendly mortgage for the house in Chappaqua, a carpet-bagging Senate run, the Clinton Foundation, pay for play speeches, Benghazi, and the email scandals. (I may have missed one or two others.)

It is a breathtaking history of scandal and criminality that might make Tony Soprano blush, and is certainly the envy of real life mob bosses cooling their heels in penitentiaries jail across the nation. Hillary simply has almost all the traits (and history) of a successful mob boss, including a close knit group of loyal confederates who operate under a code of omerta.

Trump has many flaws, but to my knowledge he is not an outright criminal, much less a mob boss. Trump needn’t concern himself with Vince Foster. He does need to thoughtfully and aggressively hone his attack on Hillary’s enduring criminality. There is plenty to work with.